Monday, March 16, 2009

Okay, so you may recall how the creationist asstards at the "Institute for Creation Research" (snicker, giggle) couldn't get approval from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board for their proposal to offer an online master's degree in science education, right? There is a very obvious and excellent reason for this: they're a bunch of pseudoscience-peddling frauds, motivated not by a desire to expand humanity's scientific understanding of the world but by a desperate and childish need to protect their precious bronze-age fantasies about an invisible magic sky daddy who's going to give them presents if they're good little boys and girls.

Well, this being Texas, home to quite a few childish idiots of that stripe, the ICR has found a friend in idiot representative Leo Berman, who demonstrates his brilliant scientific acumen with such sagacious statements as "Personally, I don't believe in evolution. I don't believe I came from a salamander that came out of a pond." Berman has  you'll love this  proposed legislation to exempt the ICR from the Coordinating Board's requirements, effectively granting them privileges no other educational body has.

What a great life you have when you're a Christian. Rules don't apply to you! And if the facts don't back up your ideologies, why, just legislate your need to provide those facts away!

But hey, the Texan anti-science onslaught doesn't end there. The aptly named Wayne Christian has proposed the sweeping HB 4224, which, in the words of the TFN, "would open the door to teaching public school students almost any cockamamie concept that any crackpot wants to portray as 'science,' regardless of what mainstream scientists and school administrators have to say about it." This is just another one of those weaselly-worded bogus "academic freedom" bills, which declares that "no student in any public school or institution shall be penalized in any way because he or she subscribes to a particular position on scientific theories or hypotheses..." In other words, if Little Johnny Inbred wants to answer a question on a science test to the effect that covalent bonds are the result of angels holding hands, his teacher couldn't "penalize" him by marking the answer wrong.

I often ask myself, is there no depth of sleaze and dishonesty to which creationist fools won't stoop? And the answer is always no. Remember, they do what they do not because knowledge captivates them, but because they're afraid for their immortal souls.

But...don't be so quick to console yourself that this behavior is the desperate last-ditch flailing of a movement whose race is run and whose horse broke its leg long ago. This kind of stupidity needs to be slammed harder and harder, each time it comes up. Nothing less than the future of an entire generation of minds, let alone America's scientific and economic standing on the global stage, is at risk. These sad, debased little people can live in the 18th century all they like, if it's what keeps their fears at bay. They just have no business dragging those of us moving forward into the 21st century down into their mire with them.

30 comments:

I sometimes cant stand that I fought for this country, that my friends died for 'policy' makers like this.(if I had to do it again I would tho)

If ignorant damn fools like this are the legislative voices of our country, we are no better than the Taliban, or Al Qaeda. (mind you all of there political decisions are based off "divine" inspirations)

I had a feeling our country was going down the tube when I heard Palins divine foreign policy! ROFL WTF????

But there must be someone up there! Obama is president!!

j/k you dont need a magic sky daddy to make this government democratic after good ol' George DumbAss Bush...

I have a question: How useful are degrees from these creationist science courses in a practical working sense? I know graduates might use them to go work at places like Liberty U. or Discovery, but are people with degrees like that actually getting jobs in real labs in secular universities or government? I would hope not and if that's the case, why spend years studying something only to end up with a degree that limits you to places that only represent your religion?

I know graduates might use them to go work at places like Liberty U. or Discovery, but are people with degrees like that actually getting jobs in real labs in secular universities or government?

Nope, which is of course giving them all kinds of cause to play the Christian persecution/"viewpoint discrimination" card, rhetorically speaking. But no, no actual real-world science jobs, for reasons that should be obvious. If you ran a garage, would you hire a mechanic who thought cars were powered by pixies?

... why spend years studying something only to end up with a degree that limits you to places that only represent your religion?

To flatter themselves with the delusion that their religious beliefs are scientifically supported, a fact that the "atheist/materialist worldview" of "Big Science" is suppressing, you brave Christian martyr, you!

I agree - it seems clear they want to legitimize their kookiness by adding an "academic" degree to their credentials so their scientific claims would appear to be well, scientific when they are not. I doubt they have any serious interest in working an any legitimate scientific field. They just want to say, well Jo-Bob Ding Dong isn't just a preacher, he has a degree in science.

Which reminds me of a horribly good B movie, the name of which escapes me, where the scientist husband tells his not exactly human wife to leave him be for he must go to the den to "do science."

The breaking point would occur when the money from the big Christian Right Wing organizations runs out. As long as those operate economically sound, there will always be sufficient cash flow to secure the ICR's jobs. Imagine that, having a job that pays off well, is incredibly easy, and doesn't require any skills except occasionally spouting some rhetoric to convince kindergarten dropouts. Once you're in the system, you can spend all your time copy-pasting together colorful pictures with Bible verses and have them printed as 'articles' in your own 'scientific journal', phoning around the country to check out nice-sounding degrees to mailorder, and writing concerned letters to newspapers about how much you're being persecuted, and how that evil online atheist is trying to ruin your business because he hates God.

On the subject of "academic degrees", I went and saw a guy named Frank Turek speak near me a month or so ago. Of course one of the first things the guy who introduced him said was that he had a "doctorate in apologetics" from Southern Evangelical Seminary. So I went to SES's own website and found this page.

Degree programs of study offered by Southern Evangelical Seminary have been declared exempt from the requirements for licensure under the provisions of North Carolina General Statutes Section (G.S.) 116-15(d) for exemption from licensure with respect to religious education.

Cool! So, if you can manage to start a religious school in North Carolina, you can create masters/doctorate programs in...well, unless I'm understanding this wrong...pretty much anything you want.

Anyone wanna go in on this? I've got some pretty great ideas, such as:

- Master of the Universe (with internship at Greyskull)- Doctor of Evil (with major in Villainy)

It's off topic, but I thought that the exchange between Jeff Dee and John over offense and Hell was incredibly interesting, and a really good illustration of the value of "aggressive atheism" (as opposed to "friendly atheism") -- which is a longstanding debate in the atheist community. If you'll forgive the self-promotion, I blog about the exchange here, which also includes an embedded YouTube video of the call.

"It's off topic, but I thought that the exchange between Jeff Dee and John over offense and Hell was incredibly interesting, and a really good illustration of the value of "aggressive atheism" (as opposed to "friendly atheism") -"

I disagree. I don't see what atheists gain by saying they are "offended" by Christians or any other religious types. Offense generally implies some kind of emotional reaction, and I think the emphasis must always be on the fact that atheists believe a religion is wrong based on the strong evidence against it.

For example, I'm not offended by the story of Noah's Ark, or by the people that believe it. But I can point to numerous reasons why the story can't be literally true.

Of course, if creationists are out there trying to force my kid to learn about Noah's Ark through one of their ID schemes, yes, that is something I would be offended at. But that's not the same as being offended at the belief by itself or in the believer.

Anyway, isn't offense typically the domain of religious types anyway due to its emotional aspect? Didn't the UK just pass a law saying its illegal to offend Islam? Aren't these Christians constantly harping on how our "depraved" and "immoral" culture offends their sensibilities?

Max: it's not really about offense -- it's about prodding the Christian who believes in truly offensive things and has never been called on it.

Someone who thinks that 5/6ths of the planet deserves to be tortured for all of eternity simply because they don't attend his favorite church holds a monstrous belief. The only reason they aren't uncomfortable with holding such a belief is because it's perfectly acceptable (indeed, encouraged) for people to hold that monstrous belief in contemporary society. But that doesn't make the belief less monstrous.

As I note on my blog, I'm usually more in the "nice atheist" camp. But Jeff's exchange really opened my eyes and made me appreciate the value of a well-placed appeal to emotion in reaching out to a certain set of believers.

While these degrees may not be legitimate in the "real" scientific community, it gives these nut bags numbers when it comes to making a claim. "4000 scientists don't believe in the theory of evolution" or some garbage like that. Unfortunately many people are very impressed with numbers.

Since they got their ass beat in the Dover trial in trying to pass their snake oil creationism as science, they are now trying to infiltrate the scientific community. They probably feel that they can blur the line between pseudoscience and real science. Since most folks can't tell the difference, they're probably right. :P

"... why spend years studying something only to end up with a degree that limits you to places that only represent your religion?"

To flatter themselves with the delusion that their religious beliefs are scientifically supported, a fact that the "atheist/materialist worldview" of "Big Science" is suppressing, you brave Christian martyr, you!

I'd add that they're also in the business of constructing a Christian parallel reality. Michelle Goldberg, in Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, talks about going into libraries and bookstores in megachurches and seeing shelf after shelf of revisionist science and history books. Part of this process involves minting their own "experts".

I've encountered people wanting just that kind of thing. I used to work in the children's area at a public library and I had a woman come up to me and ask me with a straight face where the creationist dinosaur books were. I told her we didn't buy books from those publishers. But still....this woman in a large suburb of Kansas City thought she could walk into a publicly funded library and find garbage like that. I'm sure its because her church had exactly the type of revisionist library you're talking about.

But still....this woman in a large suburb of Kansas City thought she could walk into a publicly funded library and find garbage like that.

I was going to say that I get annoyed when our public libraries here in the Boston area stock books by evangelical apologists, but at least we don't have the sort of thing you're talking about - then I checked the catalog online. One of the libraries in the system has Ken Ham's Dinosaurs of Eden : a biblical journey through time - here in the godless liberal Northeast. I'm appalled.

"4000 scientists don't believe in the theory of evolution" or some garbage like that.

That's like Paul's claim in the NT that over 500 people saw the risen Christ. Christians today will point to that and say "You see, there were EYEWITNESSES!" Never mind that Paul could have just been pulling the number out of his ass.

"On the subject of "academic degrees", I went and saw a guy named Frank Turek speak near me a month or so ago."Ah Frank Turek. I saw a video of him debating Hitchens.He's not a logician like W.L. Craig or Richard Swinburne but his logic certainly ran circles around Hitchens. Hitchens would use world like vile,evil and totalitarian to desribe religion .It was obvious for all his insults and emotional appeals he could not address the logic of Turek's arguments. I remember when couldn't refute Turek's argument from design he resorted to "Oh this is such a horrible universe, we are all going to die a heat death".Nice use of emotional appeal Hitchens.I face-palmed every time he committed the naturalistic fallacy.It was also annoying when he made appeals to ignorance ("we just don't know, but don't believe Frank Turek") and saying stuff like "that is just a deist God".

You people are addicts; the only factor motivating you is to keep believing at all costs, even at the cost of the eternal damnation of the entirety of humanity.

There is absolutely NOTHING that Hitchens or anyone else could say that would cause you even to consider the possibility that you might be wrong. You cling to the most horrific belief system ever devised because it allows you to delude yourselves into feeling "loved" by God, and offers you the assurance of personal continuity after death. The fact that that assurance comes at the cost of unimaginable suffering for the majority of humanity for all of eternity doesn't faze you one iota.

"Free Thinker". Please - if you ever did have a "free" thought you wouldn't know what to do with it.

You people are addicts; the only factor motivating you is to keep believing at all costs, even at the cost of the eternal damnation of the entirety of humanity.

You never met me and you know all my psychological reasons for believing. If I said you were being presumptious it would be an understatement

There is absolutely NOTHING that Hitchens or anyone else could say that would cause you even to consider the possibility that you might be wrong.This is wrong. I have changed my position on issues before and been wrong. However I do not find people like Hitchens who use emotional appeals and logical fallacies convincing.

You cling to the most horrific belief system ever devised because it allows you to delude yourselves into feeling "loved" by God, and offers you the assurance of personal continuity after death. The fact that that assurance comes at the cost of unimaginable suffering for the majority of humanity for all of eternity doesn't faze you one iota.So you are saying the doctrine of hell is bad? Just to clarify my position is that hell is a place of shame for those who sin, not a place of physical torture

http://www.tektonics.org/uz/2muchshame.html

"Free Thinker". Please - if you ever did have a "free" thought you wouldn't know what to do with it.

Please - it's still eternal vengeance meted out by your deranged god who seems to require the "honor" with which they are obsessed in that article.

Fundies are always telling me how willing they are to change their positions; the only change I've ever seen any of you make is from one flavor of fundamentalism to another. I've never once seen an exception. Not once.

That's it for me; I'm out. I'm unsubscribing from these recent threads. I've spent the past few days reading the idiocy spewed out by these characters, particularly that pathetic imbecile Andrew, whom most of you have been treating as though he had something of value to say. I come to here to get away from these people, and I keep waiting for the rest of you to hand these guys their hats.

Cipher, it's not the comment policy here to ban theist commenters just for being obtuse dimwits. Generally, if they descend to being nothing more than pointlessly offensive, like Rhology, then we'll kick 'em to the curb. But I personally enjoy mixing it up with clueless believers, and when it gets tiresome, I just move on. If you get fed up talking to these people, just do the same.

Anyway, "Mr. FreeThinker," yes, the Doctrine of Hell is not only bad, it singlehandedly disqualifies Christianity from consideration as a moral belief system, full stop.

What is so immoral about hell?When people engage in sinful activities the bring dishonor to God their creator.So God in reciprocation sends them to a place of shame and dishonor in the afterlife.How is it immoral? .It is simply reciprocation.

So you're essentially saying that an all-powerful all-knowing all-loving creator couldn't get forgiveness, a basic human construct that all of us practice, through his all-knowing all-powerful all-loving head?

The bill requires that an organization "offers bona fide degree programs that require students to complete substantive course work in order to receive a degree from the institution"I guess the ACA doesn't qualify since we don't exactly teach any courses. We can't start giving out degrees until we decide to teach at least one course. How about the Irrationality of religion.

PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/axp.

This blog encourages believers who disagree with us to comment. However, anonymous comments are disallowed to weed out cowardly flamers who hide behind anonymity. Commenters will only be banned when they've demonstrated they're nothing more than trolls whose behavior is intentionally offensive to the blog's readership.

Email policy

All emails sent to the program at the tv[at]atheist-community[dot]org address become the property of the ACA, and the desire for a reply is assumed. Note that this reply could take the form of a public response on the show or here on the blog. In those cases, we will never include the correspondent's address, but will include names unless we deem it inappropriate. If you absolutely do not wish for us to address your email publicly, please include a note to that effect (like "private response only" or "not for publication" or "if you post this on the blog please don't use my name") somewhere in the letter.

Google Analytics script

Subscribe To

AE and Related Sites

PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/axp.The Atheist Experience is a weekly live call-in television show sponsored by the Atheist Community of Austin. This independently-run blog (not sponsored by the ACA) features contributions from current and former hosts and co-hosts of the show.